Pages

Thursday, November 26, 2015

What a common Muslim thinks of ISIS Terror?

Motiur Rahman Khan

Paris attack last week (November 13, 2015) came as a shocker
for the Muslims of India, who are already living under watching eyes of their
friends and neighbors for their ‘inherent qualities’ of eating beef, ‘love
jihad’, ‘intolerant and violent nature’, ‘keeping more than one wife’ and
‘breeding like pigs—which ultimately led to increase in their population growth
percentage which is more than that of Hindus’. This attack has further added
suspicion and has created a trust-deficit among the communities. Many groups
organized silent marches in support of Paris all over the country the same day.
Everyone was almost more than ready to condemn the barbaric attack in whatever
capacity and manner they could have done. Whereas some others, while standing
with Parisians in this hour of grief, also questioned the selective pain for
Paris as other cities in Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey also suffered such attacks
within 36 hours of Paris attack. While all these activities were going on in
public spaces, I wanted to understand the common Muslims’ perspective: what they
discuss in tea shops, at barber’s place while waiting for their turn for a
hairdo or after disassembling from a formal meeting for a protest against the
attack. My methodology was just listening to these people without intervening
into the discussion so that I may not, unnecessarily, inject my understanding
of the events. Here is what I gathered
from the discussions:

1. Creation of Dayesh (ISIS) :

The so called Arab Spring was actively supported by the West
and French, the former colonial masters of the region were more than active in
it. The way the ISIS fighters, as their propaganda videos show, run their tanks
and posses all the military skills of handling sophisticated weapons and the
weapon itself say it loudly that these fighters have been trained by the West
intelligence or the defense departments. The West funded and fuelled the rebels
of Syria and Iraq with weapons and training to overthrow the Asad regime, who
in turn sought help from Shia fighters. This multiplied the problems of the
region and neither the Asad regime was toppled nor the rebels remained in the
hands of the West. It is a problem with the West that when they do not find a
regime of their choice they seek a violent regime change, especially in Middle
East (read Muslim countries). In Egypt, first they toppled the Mubarak regime
and elections were held, what happened then?, Muslim Brotherhood came into
power, Morsi (an elected President), who represented nativists and orthodox
Muslims was again toppled to suit the West. Morsi could have again created Suez
Canal crisis for Britain and France like Iran did with the oil fields contracts
after the Islamic Revolution. Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Husein and the Taliban
all were creations of Cold War, where their strategy was to invoke the name of
religion and jihad to fight their war as foot soldiers.

2. The Arab Spring could have been dealt with differently :

Rise of Arab Spring was hailed by one and all but nobody was
ready to pay any heed to the danger of the rightist political groups such as,
Banna inspired Muslim Brotherhood. If the people were not happy with their
respective governments, they must have been left to protest peacefully, they
must have been given moral support. UN must have kept a watch on the situation
and it should have taken actions if required but rebels must not have been
armed to match the might of their governments. These groups did not get time to
mature their movements, the unparalleled armament and money left them
unbridled. They started advancing their own personal ambitions. After all,
Burma is on the verge of becoming a democratic country and all these happened
with peaceful protests and demands of the people of Burma without any active
support from foreign powers. It took time but this transition would be relatively
peaceful. They have some of their problems but they have a tradition of mass
mobilization and people’s intervention, they will handle these peacefully. What
is the need of providing monetary and strategic help to the rebels? They do it
for the values of democracy? Why states like North Korea, China and Saudi
Arabia are not visible to them? Why don’t they fund and encourage people from
these countries to throw their oppressive regimes?

3. What ISIS wants :

ISIS is either a group of mindless youths, who have no
knowledge of basics of Islam or the reincarnation of the ‘kharjites’ (khariji,
a group emerged during the last days of pious caliphates, who were
responsible for bringing down the pious caliphate and inciting different
violent movements within Islam, killing a number of friends and relatives of
the Prophet), who are mindlessly killing innocent people to satisfy their
hunger for power in the Levant or beyond that. They bear no morality prescribed
in Islam have no faith in Kaba talk of destroying it as for them revering it is
idolatrous. They don’t believe in injunctions of even Quran, where it has been
prescribed in bold letters that no innocent person be killed and such killing
is like murder of all humanity. But certainly they have their political motive
behind all their barbaric acts. With their act of terror: butchering innocent
people in front of public and on camera, killing people in their suicide
attacks and enslaving and killing of women and children is well planned policy.
They want to heat the ground for Muslims who are living their lives peacefully
all over the world. These acts of theirs with all kind of propaganda are to
make Muslims suspicious in the eyes of their friends and neighbors. It is their
strategy to make the Muslims insecure in their own homes. So that they are
persecuted everywhere and they have no alternative but to leave their peaceful
lives. They want all the Muslims to be pushed towards terrorism. ISIS has very
dangerous plan to destabilize the peaceful existence of the Muslims all over
the world.

4. Refugees :

The people fleeing from the war torn regions have become a
problem for Europe and now after the Paris carnage, the debate of admitting or
not admitting the refugees into their territories has become very harsh. While
a number of people are standing in their support but the voices against giving
refuge to such a huge number has become very loud and a section of the
Europeans are against allowing Muslim refugees since they think that these
Muslims are threat to their national security. Indian Muslims are of opinion
that the fleeing from their war torn region is not the solution. It is their
duty to fight and struggle into their own countries. If they live and struggle
only then they will reach to a solution. Fleeing from their homes is not the
solution at all because they are facing much more problems than they could have
faced while remaining and struggling for their rights. How can you expect
Europe to help you when other nearby Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE,
Quwait and other Middle East countries are not ready to give refuge to you? The
people of Syria, Iraq and other affected region should help each other in the
time of crisis rather than seeking help from outside world. The organizations/people
you are battling with wants you to become refugees and with these tactics only
they have become so powerful. Give them a befitting reply by not leaving your
home.

It
was quite interesting to know the opinion of common Muslims of an international
crisis, nearly all of them blamed the West for the present crisis, but at the
same time they had a piece of advice for the people of the war torn zone to
resist the terror of ISIS and their likes. People were very much critical of
Saudi Arabia and the Arab world, which have not only been hostile to the
victims of the crisis but also been a part of the problem itself. ISIS, for
them, is not only a problem for the world but they are particularly the
greatest danger for the Muslims.

The author teaches Medieval Indian History at PGDAVCollege (Eve), University of Delhi

No comments:

Post a Comment

Editorial

How do we see the world? It is neither a gaze, nor is it to invent the predetermined truth, it is to intervene from a position. Our seeing is changing at the same time and without any claim to excavate the unadulterated truth that never existed.
READ MORE...